LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 24 Oct 2017 10:39

Philip wrote:Anyway,the good Dr.Das in VAYU has done an evaluation of the JF-17 and says that it is a better bird than LCA MK-1. he gives his technical reasons in depth. Gives some solutions as to how to improve the LCA from an eng. standpoint.

How many actual planes (military and non-military) has the good Dr designed and built.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 24 Oct 2017 10:39

shiv wrote:
Indranil wrote: Frankly, I don't like that positioning of the dispenser canister. It doesn't fit in there completely and a fairing is added just in front of the the extra part that juts out. I hope they refine it further.
What is your exact objection?

The interesting part to me is that an IR seeker directly at the back locking on to the exhaust will start seeing hot spots diverging away from the very hot spot (the exhaust) it was centered on and if the plane manoeuvres away only the flares will be left visible.

Aren't the current generation of IR seekers with ability to neglect the flares..? I thought they are. Its bit easier to differentiate and reject ultra high temp spots that flares create (It has Magnesium isn't it?). I was thinking now a days sensors actually target the relatively hotter (wrt background) airframe when they close in and not the exhaust hotspot per se. With increased resolution and computational power on-board, its possible to put better algorithms. But it could be so that flares also have improved over time. My knowledge is anyway limited on this front.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Oct 2017 11:06

Hakeem,

My objection is not with the placement of the CMDS. My objection is that it doesn't fit flush with the surface of the aircraft. What is the use of smoothening out that trailing edge extension only to add CMDS canisters which are jutting out?

JayS,

Modern CCMs can decipher between flares and planes. If only one flare was released, it is unlikely to break lock. But if there were 10 flares, that may just be enough noise to overwhelm the processing momentarily to break the lock.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 24 Oct 2017 15:16

Philip wrote:Kalam promised us in 2003 that by 2013 we would have 200 in the air! Anyway,the good Dr.Das in VAYU has done an evaluation of the JF-17 and says that it is a better bird than LCA MK-1. he gives his technical reasons in depth. The telling point he makes about both programmes and gives datelines for both,is that 5 sqds. of JF-17s are flying,gives data about availability,accidents,etc. and says that at low cost Pak is rapidly finding not just replacements for its Chinese MIG clones but an aircraft that with some tweaking would be a decent F-16 replacement. Gives some solutions as to how to improve the LCA from an eng. standpoint.

Some other titbits,extra 36 Rafales will come in at approx. 60% of the cost of the first batch say some,which would make it around $125M a pop,still hugely expensive,why the SE bird is being pursued as the interim solution to falling numbers and capability.

The 5 squadrons of JF-17 couldn't field a single aircraft at Bahrain last year to challenge a mere prototype of LCA Tejas!

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 24 Oct 2017 15:30

A little OT. The pic below shows how the seeker of a modern IIR missile like Python-5 will "see" the target. Apparently, they are designed not to look at the hot spots from turbines but the overall heat signature of the airframe.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Oct 2017 15:40

^This is from wiki...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrare ... ng_systems

Imaging systems Edit
Modern heat-seeking missiles utilise imaging infrared (IIR), where the IR/UV sensor is a focal plane array which is able to produce an image in infra-red, much like the CCD in a digital camera. This requires much more signal processing but can be much more accurate and harder to fool with decoys. In addition to being more flare-resistant, newer seekers are also less likely to be fooled into locking onto the sun, another common trick for avoiding heat-seeking missiles. By using the advanced image processing techniques, the target shape can be used to find its most vulnerable part toward which the missile is then steered.[45] All western Short-range air-to-air missile such as AIM-9X Sidewinder and ASRAAM, Chinese PL-10 SRAAM and Israeli Python-5 use imaging infrared seekers, while Russian R-73 still uses infrared seeker.

Countermeasures

There are two primary ways to defeat IR seekers, using flares or IR jammers.

Flares
Early seekers did not image the target, and anything within their FOV would create an output. A flare released by the target causes a second signal to appear within the FOV, producing a second angle output, and the chance that the seeker will begin to aim at the flare instead. Against early spin-scan seekers this was extremely effective because the signal from the target was minimized through the midcourse, so even a dim signal from the flare would be seen and tracked. Of course if this happens, the flare now disappears from view and the aircraft becomes visible again. However, if the aircraft moves out of the FOV during this time, which happens rapidly, the missile can no longer reacquire the target.

One solution to the flare problem is to use a dual-frequency seeker. Early seekers used a single detector that was sensitive to very hot portions of the aircraft and to the jet exhaust, making them suitable for tail-chase scenarios. To allow the missile to track from any angle, new detectors were added that were much more sensitive and in other frequencies as well. This presented a way to distinguish flares; the two seekers saw different locations for the target aircraft - the aircraft itself as opposed to its exhaust - but a flare appeared at the same point at both frequencies. These could then be eliminated.

More complex systems were used with digital processing, especially crossed-array and rosette seekers. These had such extremely narrow instantaneous fields of view (IFOV) that they could be processed to produce an image, in the same fashion as a desktop scanner. By remembering the location of the target from scan to scan, objects moving at high speeds relative to the target could be eliminated. This is known as cinematic filtering.[46] The same process is used by imaging systems, which image directly instead of scanning, and have the further capability of eliminating small targets by measuring their angular size directly.

My rather layman understanding is that older missiles seekers sought the heat being generated by the fighter exhaust and so could be spoofed by flares if the fighter simultaneously moved out of the seekers fov

With iir systems the seeker is looking for an image generated by the source instead of just the heat. So if the flare does not look like the generated image the missile won't be spoofed.

But of course such missiles are hardly common and I don't think the tspaf has any in it's inventory.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Oct 2017 16:43

Cain Marko wrote:But of course such missiles are hardly common and I don't think the tspaf has any in it's inventory.

Not right now but its only a matter of time. The JF-17 Blk III is expected to include a HOBS-AAM (& HMDS), almost certainly the Chinese PL-10E (IIR seeker, 90 deg FoV). The older blocks will likely be retrofitted with it in due course.

And while the US will not export the Aim-9X, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the new Turkish WVRAAM in development made it onto the PAF F-16s at some stage.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Oct 2017 17:16

Cain Marko wrote:
My rather layman understanding is that older missiles seekers sought the heat being generated by the fighter exhaust and so could be spoofed by flares if the fighter simultaneously moved out of the seekers fov

With iir systems the seeker is looking for an image generated by the source instead of just the heat. So if the flare does not look like the generated image the missile won't be spoofed.

But of course such missiles are hardly common and I don't think the tspaf has any in it's inventory.

The only way a missile can be programmed to look for an aircraft's IR signature is to look for much cooler spots other than the exhaust itself. If a bunch of very hot spots simply obscured the seeker's view of the cooler spots it could provide a window for the plane to turn away while the seeker is still searching for confirmatory cooler areas that conform to the general shape of an aircraft. At least that is my understanding...

Then again a missile launch warning would be useful..

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 24 Oct 2017 18:32

The CMDS is easily reachable by the ground crew for replenishing quickly.
If they put it anywhere else, one would need a stair to reach it.

This is a racing car, which is supposed to have very short pitstops for refueling and replenishing. The IAF should also ask that the fast refueling also be incorporated in the IAF jets.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 24 Oct 2017 19:03

First principle of camouflage: Obscure your edges.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 24 Oct 2017 19:04

shiv wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:
My rather layman understanding is that older missiles seekers sought the heat being generated by the fighter exhaust and so could be spoofed by flares if the fighter simultaneously moved out of the seekers fov

With iir systems the seeker is looking for an image generated by the source instead of just the heat. So if the flare does not look like the generated image the missile won't be spoofed.

But of course such missiles are hardly common and I don't think the tspaf has any in it's inventory.
The only way a missile can be programmed to look for an aircraft's IR signature is to look for much cooler spots other than the exhaust itself. If a bunch of very hot spots simply obscured the seeker's view of the cooler spots it could provide a window for the plane to turn away while the seeker is still searching for confirmatory cooler areas that conform to the general shape of an aircraft. At least that is my understanding...

Then again a missile launch warning would be useful..

That is exactly what Cain Marko is saying and the purpose of IIR. It has to do with the granularity available from the different type of sensors. Besides, imaging (IIR) allows auto-correlation analysis as well for better tracking.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Oct 2017 21:18

neerajb wrote:
Indranil wrote:They are not modifying the airframe in any way. It has been frozen for Mk1. They are only clearing test points.

One of the test points relate to a feature which was seen on early wind tunnel models but not in real flight testing. This led to somebody proposing that the said feature was never implemented in the aircrafts, and we all jingoes went with it. You will soon realize that the feature was implemented all along.
Is it internal cannon? Why this suspense saar?

I don't understand this demand for info from some members.
And then others report the poster!!!

For all we know it might not be implemented.
Then a whine fest will start.

Why cant any info be taken as a data point until it gets implemented?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Oct 2017 23:37

+108 Ramana-ji. Be thankful for whatever info you are getting.

nam · Post by **nam** » 25 Oct 2017 01:26

Zynda wrote:A little OT. The pic below shows how the seeker of a modern IIR missile like Python-5 will "see" the target. Apparently, they are designed not to look at the hot spots from turbines but the overall heat signature of the airframe.

TFTA Aim9X also has such Imaging Seeker, only to follow a flare dispensed by a Syrian SU-22 !

It was shot down using Aim120

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 25 Oct 2017 04:08

Philip wrote:Full details in the Intl.Aero td. For those who feel that the F-35 is the "bees knees",etc. and must be acquired.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... or-combat/
Nearly 200 of America's F-35s May Remain Indefinitely Unfit for Combat (Updated)
has there been any talk of leveraging the LCA prog. with that of the AMCA? If AMCA has to arrive 2030+,work on it has to sart asap which will make it a parallel prog. along with the LCA MK-2. Do we have the technical /human resources for the same?

Rumor out there that 2 weeks ago Israeli F35 was damaged by missile from S300 system in Syria . Israel claims it was bird hit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE2D3G-ogLs

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 25 Oct 2017 04:11

Austin wrote:Successful Flight Tests For the Active Array Radar Offered by Thales to HAL’s Tejas

Did they sell us low end Mango radar in M2K upgrade steal ?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Oct 2017 04:59

No Sir. AFAIK, our Mirage 2000 upgrade consists of the RDY-2 airborne fire control radar. A very effective unit. Not low end.

The Mirage 2000 Upgrade: What Makes India's Fighter Jet Better
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/the-mir ... ter-749715

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Oct 2017 06:59

^nevertheless not an aesa.... And pricey to boot. But yes, best in class of mech scanned arrays along with the captor on the early phoons

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 25 Oct 2017 09:40

Viv S wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:But of course such missiles are hardly common and I don't think the tspaf has any in it's inventory.
Not right now but its only a matter of time. The JF-17 Blk III is expected to include a HOBS-AAM (& HMDS), almost certainly the Chinese PL-10E (IIR seeker, 90 deg FoV). The older blocks will likely be retrofitted with it in due course.

And while the US will not export the Aim-9X, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the new Turkish WVRAAM in development made it onto the PAF F-16s at some stage.

Block III has been inducted with no Aerial refuelling and No BVR tests , hmds stuff also no testing results. Please take Paki sources with Alice of salt. If the capabilities of JF 17 by certain Pakis and Cheenis are to be believed, PLAAF would be indicting 75 aircraft a year and it will have a 2000 aircraft order book. Anyway OT let's talk about JF17 can be Paki miltary thread

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Oct 2017 09:55

Aditya_V wrote:Block III has been inducted with no Aerial refuelling and No BVR tests , hmds stuff also no testing results.

That's the Blk 2. Deliveries reportedly began in 2015-16 and will continue to 2019 when the Blk 3 is supposed to replace it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Oct 2017 10:15

M2K upgrades at $50M a pop! Incredible.We could get around 2 LCAs for that price.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 25 Oct 2017 11:03

I'll be using a certain few posts from this dhagaa in my letter to the powers that be at the ADA.

If something is supposed to be public knowledge, it's already out there. If it's not out there, with the public, there's a reason for that.

This Chai wala business, is what I'm going to write to the authorities. Needs to stop.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 25 Oct 2017 11:14

OT Again but as per Paki claaims Block III JF 17 has been inducted. I think Paki claims of JF 17 are false than true.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/3867-paf-to-i ... ii-in-2016

Its like the JF 17 ACG 400 missile, a 3 .5 tonne missile being armeed on the JF 17. Thats the logic for everyone.

I wish people ccan show me videos of a vertical loop completed by the Chinese JF-17 aircraft.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 25 Oct 2017 11:25

nirav wrote:I'll be using a certain few posts from this dhagaa in my letter to the powers that be at the ADA.

If something is supposed to be public knowledge, it's already out there. If it's not out there, with the public, there's a reason for that.

This Chai wala business, is what I'm going to write to the authorities. Needs to stop.

Childish tantrums. If you ask nicely, Tejas FB admin himself will tell you about things which are not in public domain as such, perhaps because no journo bothered to ask or write about it. Of course if you ask about STR there will be no reply. There are many posters here who know about much more sensitive info, but would never utter a word about it. People are sensible enough to know what can be discussed and what not and that includes Indranil. So stop trolling.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Oct 2017 11:29

He wants to be banned. So doing all these pranks. Too much time.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 25 Oct 2017 11:30

What makes you think I haven't spoken to the admin?
I did and he agreed in principle with what I had to say.

Let's see what the authorities have to say about it ?
If they determine if it's "childish tantrums" the matter can be put to rest.
If not, they will decide what's to be done.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 25 Oct 2017 11:30

ramana wrote:He wants to be banned. So doing all these pranks. Too much time.

Please oblige !

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 25 Oct 2017 11:35

JayS wrote:
nirav wrote:I'll be using a certain few posts from this dhagaa in my letter to the powers that be at the ADA.

If something is supposed to be public knowledge, it's already out there. If it's not out there, with the public, there's a reason for that.

This Chai wala business, is what I'm going to write to the authorities. Needs to stop.
Childish tantrums. If you ask nicely, Tejas FB admin himself will tell you about things which are not in public domain as such, perhaps because no journo bothered to ask or write about it. Of course if you ask about STR there will be no reply. There are many posters here who know about much more sensitive info, but would never utter a word about it. People are sensible enough to know what can be discussed and what not and that includes Indranil. So stop trolling.

Actually, thank you.
You just validated a concern of mine.
What business do these posters have to be in the possession of 'sensitive info' ?
Who guarantees and takes responsibility for them not uttering a word ?
You or BR or the mods ?
Do tell.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 25 Oct 2017 11:51

nirav wrote:
JayS wrote:
Childish tantrums. If you ask nicely, Tejas FB admin himself will tell you about things which are not in public domain as such, perhaps because no journo bothered to ask or write about it. Of course if you ask about STR there will be no reply. There are many posters here who know about much more sensitive info, but would never utter a word about it. People are sensible enough to know what can be discussed and what not and that includes Indranil. So stop trolling.
Actually, thank you.
You just validated a concern of mine.
What business do these posters have to be in the possession of 'sensitive info' ?
Who guarantees and takes responsibility for them not uttering a word ?
You or BR or the mods ?
Do tell.

Stop being a baby. People know from their professional background, because they are from AFs or from Def/Aerospace business and worked with/on projects/products of sensitive nature. Responsibility is with those who hold information (even Export control laws like ITAR work like that). What IR shared is no where close to being sensitive or secret, its not even a "technical" information. Just knowing some juicy tidbits is not holding "technical information" of sensitive nature. Clearly you do not understand what is sensitive or not.

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Oct 2017 11:58

Yawn.. Let me speculate here on what is the "feature" that is being people are so curious about.

1. Wet mid board tanks.
2. Centreline pylons cleared for tanks
3. Centreline pylon probably cleared to carry 2 * 500 Bombs. or 4*250 kg bombs or multiple rack of A2A missiles.

With that, what it means is that the with 2*800 kg rated mid board wet pylons, the fuel capacity goes up by 400 kg over carrying carrying 1200kg fuel in the centre line pylon. 400kg means approx 6.6% increase in the max fuel that the LCA can carry currently (6000 kg , 2400 internal, 2*1200 aboard, 1200 centre). That 400kg fuel is typically the reserve that would be kept in mission planning. So all in all greater flexibility in mission planning and probably more max range possible in strike configuration and will certainly put MORE legs and persistance on the LCA for all kinds of roles, including air defence.

Will this get reported to the "concerned folks" too ?

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 25 Oct 2017 11:59

Maybe, maybe not.
I'll do my bit by raising the issue at an official level.
If it's fine, atleast I'd be content.

Statements like " I know but I shouldn't be talking about it" don't instill much confidence.. the forum search feature will be a useful tool in digging up similar posts for the official complaint.
Thank you for your input.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 25 Oct 2017 12:28

nirav wrote:Maybe, maybe not.
I'll do my bit by raising the issue at an official level.
If it's fine, atleast I'd be content.

Statements like " I know but I shouldn't be talking about it" don't instill much confidence.. the forum search feature will be a useful tool in digging up similar posts for the official complaint.
Thank you for your input.

Feel free to write to PMO about sensitive info being leaked by ADA. Also share with Pappu also, he can use this bit in his useless speeches to hammer down Modi (#ModiShouldResign for sensitive LCA info being leaked to jingos). Everyone will have a nice laugh.

This stupid thing about you cant know this or you can't know that comes from the commie hangover our country has from Nehru-Gandhi era. There is so much stuff about LCA that ADA can easily share with public without having any impact whatsoever on its ability to surprise enemy (I guess they don't have enough motivation or even time to do that, too busy with work already). The amount of technical info shared, had it been in US or Europe, would be definitely far far more. Any dedicated and half decent aero engineer can get the ballpark performance figures of aero config of LCA, efforts would be significant but not so much that its undoable if he is hell-bent. If I were enemy of India and wanted to know LCA's performance I would put a team of a handful of engineers to make models and run them in WT and CFD to get a very good estimate of all key performance parameters. Its more difficult for stuff which is hidden inside i.e. the avionics. But I am sure the experts in that field can draw good enough conclusion from easily available information. There is really a small set of technical information which needs to be guarded closely. Majority of technical performance parameters can be estimated relatively easily if experts are put on the job.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 25 Oct 2017 12:40

vina wrote:Yawn.. Let me speculate here on what is the "feature" that is being people are so curious about.

1. Wet mid board tanks.
2. Centreline pylons cleared for tanks
3. Centreline pylon probably cleared to carry 2 * 500 Bombs. or 4*250 kg bombs or multiple rack of A2A missiles.

With that, what it means is that the with 2*800 kg rated mid board wet pylons, the fuel capacity goes up by 400 kg over carrying carrying 1200kg fuel in the centre line pylon. 400kg means approx 6.6% increase in the max fuel that the LCA can carry currently (6000 kg , 2400 internal, 2*1200 aboard, 1200 centre). That 400kg fuel is typically the reserve that would be kept in mission planning. So all in all greater flexibility in mission planning and probably more max range possible in strike configuration and will certainly put MORE legs and persistance on the LCA for all kinds of roles, including air defence.

Will this get reported to the "concerned folks" too ?

With wet mid-board pylons, and tandem bomb racks on inboard and centerline pylons, LCA could go in with 6x 1000pounders, 2x800ltr tanks and CCMs.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 25 Oct 2017 13:13

This was my favorite thread

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Oct 2017 20:12

Nirav,

If you feel that sensitive information has been leaked here, please pick it up with the concerned authorities. Stop this rona-dhona here.

Others,

No more discussion on this and derailment of thread. Discuss LCA here. Nothing that should not have been known is known. Nothing that should not have been discussed has been discussed.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 25 Oct 2017 20:36

Personal information ie Chaiwala info is different from SECRET info. DRDO & ISRO love to talk about their work & even give detailed officials talks/seminars which hardly anyone reports. So stop threatening people, it's very uncool.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 25 Oct 2017 21:13

Indranil wrote:Nirav,

If you feel that sensitive information has been leaked here, please pick it up with the concerned authorities. Stop this rona-dhona here.

Others,

No more discussion on this and derailment of thread. Discuss LCA here. Nothing that should not have been known is known. Nothing that should not have been discussed has been discussed.

I absolutely will. Not to worry.

"I know but can't tell" "I shouldn't be saying this" is what's public knowledge, yeah right.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Oct 2017 22:56

Stop this rubbish. Indranil didn't release any sensitive information. And if you want to go ahead and complain, just do it and quit BRF. The info he's provided is something that defence reporters should have provided, had they got any interest in the program, rather than sensationalist headlines. And all of that "info" will come out in the public domain eventually anyway. Stop ruining this thread just because you're sour.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 25 Oct 2017 23:48

Who was the Gentleman you claimed from secret sources that OFB Dhanush malfunction caused Numeruous injuries to soldiers; from pvt sources and threatened anyone who wanted to disagree hmmmm.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 25 Oct 2017 23:54

Philip wrote:Kalam promised us in 2003 that by 2013 we would have 200 in the air! Anyway,the good Dr.Das in VAYU has done an evaluation of the JF-17 and says that it is a better bird than LCA MK-1. he gives his technical reasons in depth. The telling point he makes about both programmes and gives datelines for both,is that 5 sqds. of JF-17s are flying,gives data about availability,accidents,etc. and says that at low cost Pak is rapidly finding not just replacements for its Chinese MIG clones but an aircraft that with some tweaking would be a decent F-16 replacement. Gives some solutions as to how to improve the LCA from an eng. standpoint.

Some other titbits,extra 36 Rafales will come in at approx. 60% of the cost of the first batch say some,which would make it around $125M a pop,still hugely expensive,why the SE bird is being pursued as the interim solution to falling numbers and capability.

Bandar started its life as Sino US programme in 1980s. So it's most advanced US non stealth single engined aircraft.